Sunday, I watched At Issue With Tom Hauser. Hauser’s interview of Neil Johnson got my blood boiling. When you read this partial transcript of the interview, you’ll understand:

Hauser: We’re gonna talk now with someone who has some thoughts on what’s being debated in Washington. He is Neil Johnson, the executive director of the Minnesota Home Care Association.
You know, a lot of people get lost in this debate because so much of it seems so complicated and they don’t understand it & it doesn’t necessarily hit home but what your folks do is take care of people, some of them near the end of their lives, some are very young, in a home health care setting. But in terms of what’s going to happen to Medicare, that generally helps the elderly, of course, they’re talking about devastating the funding for that. How might that impact people who right now are enjoying home care in their homes as opposed to being in hospitals or nursing homes?
JOHNSON: Well there’s no question and the bill’s over 2,000 pages and it’s very complex. We’re very concerned about the home health care aspects of it. We’re looking at, depending on which bill we’re talking about, the House bill cuts home health care by $56 billion over 10 years and the Senate bill, it’s something like $45 billion over 10 years. That’s about a 14.5% cut for home care and we’re about 4.5% of Medicare’s expenditures, so it’s a significant cut.
HAUSER: How many Minnesotans right now have home care?
JOHNSON: Well, we’re looking at…the estimates are 68,000-70,0000 people last year, in 2007 excuse me, and 28,000 received Medicare services and another 30-40,000 received medical assistance services.
HAUSER: And what’s gonna be the practical impact if these cuts were to go through?
JOHNSON: Well, certainly access is an issue and we’re certainly worried about that but the many agencies are hanging on the edge right now. Medicare has been a good payer for most providers in the state of Minnesota & combined with medical assistance and some waiver payments & some private payments and long-term care but Medicare has been a key factor in providing needed skill services to the citizens of Minnesota.
HAUSER: There seems to be a disconnect here because people look at home care as a way to bring down costs that are often associated with hospital stays. I know 60 Minutes just did a segment on this & they said it was a good way for people at the end of their lives of saving spending $5-10,000 a day so why’s that being targeted?
JOHNSON: Well, I think it’s an easy target because people don’t really understand what home care providers do. But, yeah, we think we’re the best alternative out there. It’s efficient. It’s productive and it’s where people want to spend the rest of their lives…

The Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare, hinting that the Republicans don’t care about senior citizens. Now the truth is out. This NYTimes article is proof that the only political party that’s cutting Medicare are the Democrats:

By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans voted against the cuts, saying they would hurt some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Most Democrats supported the cutbacks, saying they would eliminate waste and inefficiency in home care.

The Democrats’ health care bill would reduce projected Medicare spending on home care by $43 billion, or 13 percent, over the next 10 years. The savings would help offset the cost of subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.

There’s the proof. Democrats voted to cut Medicare’s home health care budget by 13 percent over the next 10 years. The next time that I hear a Democrat say that there won’t be a cut in benefits as a result of them cutting Medicare by $467,000,000,000, I’m gonna get in their face and tell them that they’re lying through their teeth. Then I’m gonna read them the riot act. THEN I’m gonna get nasty.

The notion that the Democratic Party is the protector of the elderly, the downtrodden and the people who’ve fallen through the cracks is BS. They’re cutting the most efficient part of Medicare and the part that has the most positive impact on families.

I’ll lay this out as succinctly as I know how. Medicare’s home care programs save money, lots of it. It also helps people live their last days in dignity. And the Democrats just voted to slash their budgets by 14 percent over the next decade.

What’s worse is that the Democrats say the cuts will “eliminate waste and inefficiency in home care.” That’s BS. The cuts are being made because they’re being used to insure the uninsured.

I’d love hearing a Democrat explain how cutting home care budgets, a program that’s already saving billions of dollars, will increase efficiency. I’d love hearing it because I don’t think it’s possible to give a coherent explanation on how these draconian cuts will increase efficiency.

It’s time to tell the Democrats that they’ve gone too far, that they’ve sacrificed the least able to pay for universal coverage. It’s disgusting, possibly more disgusting than cutting the DC scholarships.

The 53 Democrats that voted for these draconian cuts should pay a high political price for abandoning the elderly and those at the end of their lives. What they’ve done is unconscionable.

Technorati: Medicare, Home Care, Budget Cuts, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Democrats, Senior Citizens, End Of Life, Uninsured

Cross-posted at California Conservative